If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Half-truth #2: Increasing oil production takes too long and would not impact the market for at least a decade.
This has been the mantra of the anti-drilling crowd for years, and the longer politicians listen to the message, the longer the nation’s oil resources will remain undeveloped. If access to areas that are currently off limits is increased, it will take time to explore and extract that oil. But that does not change the fact that the nation needs it today and also in the future. Furthermore, some of this oil can reach the market in much less than a decade if the permitting process is streamlined and the Keystone XL pipeline—which could bring up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada to the Gulf Coast refineries—is built.

Last edited by spursncowboys; 03-17-2012 at 10:51 PM.
Reason: bolden title

Half-truth #3: Oil is not enough. America has only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves.
President Obama frequently uses this number to push federal investments in alternative sources of energy that cannot stand the test of the market. The reality is that he uses this number deceptively. According to the Institute for Energy Research:
[A]lthough the U.S. is said to have only 20 billion barrels of oil in reserves, the amount of oil that is technically recoverable in the U.S. is more than 1.4 trillion barrels, with the largest deposits located offshore, in portions of Alaska, and in shale in the Rocky Mountain West. When combined with resources from Canada and Mexico, total recoverable oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels, or more than the world has used since the first oil well was drilled over 150 years ago in Titusville, Pennsylvania. To put this in context, Saudi Arabia has about 260 billion barrels of oil in proved reserves.
One reason to view “reserves” estimates with caution is the fact that they are constantly in flux. In 1980, the U.S. had oil reserves of roughly 30 billion barrels. Yet from 1980 through 2010, it produced over 77 billion barrels of oil. In other words, over the last 30 years, the U.S. produced over 150 percent of the proved reserves that it had in 1980. If the massive quantities of U.S. oil are made available to explore and produce, the current estimated reserves of 20 billion barrels would certainly increase, providing much more production over decades to come. In other words, reserves are not a stagnant number.[4]

Five Actions for Congress and the Administration
Congress and the Administration should:
Get moving on permits. As the only country in the world that places a majority of its territorial waters off-limits to oil and gas exploration, the U.S. should at the very least be drilling in the areas where access is permitted. Removing the de facto moratorium on drilling would immediately increase supply, create jobs, and bring in royalty revenue to federal and state governments.
Require lease sales when ready. Congress should open areas that are off-limits: the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, Alaska’s offshore, the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, and lands out West. Congress should require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct lease sales if a commercial interest exists to explore and drill. Congress should also provide the funding necessary to lease new onshore and offshore areas to oil and gas companies. Although it would take time for the federal government to lease these areas and for the energy companies to develop them, at least the process could begin.
Create a sensible review processes. Placing a 270-day time limit on environmental reviews would ensure a quick review process for energy projects on federal lands. Construction projects on federal lands take an average of 4.4 years. The 270 days would allow for a thorough environmental review process but would not prevent investments from moving forward.[7]
Remove regulatory delays and limit litigation. Environmental activists delay new energy projects by filing endless administrative appeals and lawsuits. Creating a manageable time frame for permitting and for groups or individuals to contest energy plans would keep potentially cost-effective ventures from being tied up for years in litigation while allowing the public and interested parties to voice opposition or support for these projects.
Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. Congress should use its authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations to accept the State Department’s conclusion that construction of the pipeline would pose minimal environmental risk.[8] Approving the pipeline would create jobs and increase energy production—both of which the nation desperately needs—from a friendly supplier and ally.

Seriously dude, i understand why politicians and members of bureaucratic entities would like them as they give them money and whatnot but you are just a citizen and if i am not mistaken a soldier.

why do you want to listen to an obviously nonsubjective source that has no interest in anything other than promoting their business? Do you pay attention to TV advertising too? is that how you decide what you are going to buy?

show some initiative for goodness sake.

_____________________________

"The man who does not do his own thinking is a slave, and is a traitor to himself and to his fellow-men." -George Ingersoll

Seriously dude, i understand why politicians and members of bureaucratic entities would like them as they give them money and whatnot but you are just a citizen and if i am not mistaken a soldier.

why do you want to listen to an obviously nonsubjective source that has no interest in anything other than promoting their business? Do you pay attention to TV advertising too? is that how you decide what you are going to buy?

show some initiative for goodness sake.

Why not talk about the op?

Dude, this isn't anything new. Politicians bullshit and then get called out on it. Why not talk about what they called obama out on instead of why I want someone to question the chosen one?

Obama has to go down as one of the biggest flip floppers in presidential history. How many policies that Bush supported as president has Obama supported as president? It's fuckin' ridiculous that no one ever calls Obama out on this.
You've got talking heads on both sides saying that he is a Muslim, a socialist, pussy, or he has done a good job considering he got this mess from evil Bush.

Obama is Bush. You're a fuckin dumbass if you can't see that.

This guy has expanded the so-called war on terror more than dummy Bush ever dreamed of. Obama has given himself and his administration so much power on so many things that it's hilarious how so many people are in denial about it.

Dude, this isn't anything new. Politicians bullshit and then get called out on it. Why not talk about what they called obama out on instead of why I want someone to question the chosen one?

your presenting us with XL pipeline propaganda. you know that right? you are essentially asking us to read an advertisement for their pipeline. you're as bad as wc and his gas boiler brochures.

the price of a liter of unleaded in Covington, England is 1.48 pounds. In terms of dollars at a 1.58 exchange rate thats $8.60 a gallon. it is more profitable for the gulf coast refiners to sell it to Europe or other similar disgustingly priced location than it would be for them to sell it here.

thats why you see the phenomenon that elnono talks about. lets also not forget about the massive 1000 mile tract of imminent domain this will require for the 'public good.'

further i do not like that we are net exporting our natural resources.

its like darrin and the guardian. i just don't get that. i think of you guys as rubes or shills and i don't want to think that. i just cannot help it.

Obama has to go down as one of the biggest flip floppers in presidential history. How many policies that Bush supported as president has Obama supported as president? It's fuckin' ridiculous that no one ever calls Obama out on this.
You've got talking heads on both sides saying that he is a Muslim, a socialist, pussy, or he has done a good job considering he got this mess from evil Bush.

Obama is Bush. You're a fuckin dumbass if you can't see that.

This guy has expanded the so-called war on terror more than dummy Bush ever dreamed of. Obama has given himself and his administration so much power on so many things that it's hilarious how so many people are in denial about it.

If anyone really believed Obama would be soft on terrorism then they were duped from the start. Obama said during the campaign that he'd take Bin Laden out....and he did. ALL candidates are farther right or left than they will be in office. That has been the truth for decades.
That is exactly why so many on the GOP don't believe Romney is a true conservative because he is not and they know that as POTUS, Romney would be a moderate.
You are a dumbass if you ever thought Obama wasn't going to continue the war on terrorism.

But seriously, you are posting info from a right wing organisation. Any liberal could counter with info from a left wing source that states we DO only have 2 or 3% of the world's oil reserves. That number was out there long before Obama started using it. You've got to know that no one will take you seriously if you use a biased source in a partisan debate. Sources like the Heritage Foundation, Fox News, and MSNBC will only get you laughed out of the room.

As for the topic at hand, if it could be proven that we have enough oil to support ourselves and get off foreign oil completely, I would be for it. I believe our reliance on foreign oil is our biggest national security problem. I do not believe we can drill our way out of this problem, or the many Republican presidents before Barrack Obama would have done so by now. George W. Bush had six years of total control of Washington.

Our oil production is currently at multi-year highs. Despite this, gas prices are at seasonal highs. We are a net exporter of gasoline now. We are in a global economy. Whatever oil we add to the market will probably be negated by growing demand from developing countries. More drilling or refining will just lead to more money for big oil companies.

I am not opposed to oil companies making money. I am opposed to them doing it if they have to destroy the environment to do so. I live on the Gulf Coast and saw the damaging effects of the BP oil spill. It is not worth the risk to open up more sensitive lands for drilling when the price will not be affected and we are just further lining the pockets of big oil companies.

I think Obama is taking the right approach to the problem. The fuel economy of our cars is going up, so we consume less oil now. The government is investing in electric cars, which like it or not are the future. The government is also investing in alternative energy like solar. This is the kind of long term planning that will help get us off dirty energy like oil.

your presenting us with XL pipeline propaganda. you know that right? you are essentially asking us to read an advertisement for their pipeline. you're as bad as wc and his gas boiler brochures.

the price of a liter of unleaded in Covington, England is 1.48 pounds. In terms of dollars at a 1.58 exchange rate thats $8.60 a gallon. it is more profitable for the gulf coast refiners to sell it to Europe or other similar disgustingly priced location than it would be for them to sell it here.

thats why you see the phenomenon that elnono talks about. lets also not forget about the massive 1000 mile tract of imminent domain this will require for the 'public good.'

further i do not like that we are net exporting our natural resources.

its like darrin and the guardian. i just don't get that. i think of you guys as rubes or shills and i don't want to think that. i just cannot help it.

I don't think they'll understand that. Anyone who's dumb enough to post an article like this probably believes the oil we drill from U.S. territories is automatically "ours". They think pipelines and drilling in wildlife reserves are going to result in lower oil prices for us. Those kind of people are also probably dumb enough to believe that oil companies have the US citizen's best interest at heart and will sell oil to America below market price because they care that the average American is struggling with high gas prices. Newsflash shills, oil companies could give two shits about you, your family, or your financial troubles. Their loyalty is to their bottom line and their shareholders. If they're permitted to drill on more U.S. territories they're going to take that oil, sell it overseas, celebrate those profits while at Joe Bob and the rest of his clan who actually thought would actually make a difference when it comes to the price of gas. Like that stupid article said...that's the free market. Let it work

But seriously, you are posting info from a right wing organisation. Any liberal could counter with info from a left wing source that states we DO only have 2 or 3% of the world's oil reserves. That number was out there long before Obama started using it. You've got to know that no one will take you seriously if you use a biased source in a partisan debate. Sources like the Heritage Foundation, Fox News, and MSNBC will only get you laughed out of the room.

As for the topic at hand, if it could be proven that we have enough oil to support ourselves and get off foreign oil completely, I would be for it. I believe our reliance on foreign oil is our biggest national security problem. I do not believe we can drill our way out of this problem, or the many Republican presidents before Barrack Obama would have done so by now. George W. Bush had six years of total control of Washington.

Our oil production is currently at multi-year highs. Despite this, gas prices are at seasonal highs. We are a net exporter of gasoline now. We are in a global economy. Whatever oil we add to the market will probably be negated by growing demand from developing countries. More drilling or refining will just lead to more money for big oil companies.

I am not opposed to oil companies making money. I am opposed to them doing it if they have to destroy the environment to do so. I live on the Gulf Coast and saw the damaging effects of the BP oil spill. It is not worth the risk to open up more sensitive lands for drilling when the price will not be affected and we are just further lining the pockets of big oil companies.

I think Obama is taking the right approach to the problem. The fuel economy of our cars is going up, so we consume less oil now. The government is investing in electric cars, which like it or not are the future. The government is also investing in alternative energy like solar. This is the kind of long term planning that will help get us off dirty energy like oil.

Then focus on the data and not the source. Or don't. I don't care.
What exactly is Obama doing that you think is the right approach?
The 2% is not accurate. There was a study that said there was more oil in the Rocky's alone than any other country. That is my point. You are commenting without even reading the OP. If you want to be a troll then go ahead but you seem to actually want a discussion about this. You just rather assume the info is innacurate because of where it comes from.

I don't think they'll understand that. Anyone who's dumb enough to post an article like this probably believes the oil we drill from U.S. territories is automatically "ours". They think pipelines and drilling in wildlife reserves are going to result in lower oil prices for us. Those kind of people are also probably dumb enough to believe that oil companies have the US citizen's best interest at heart and will sell oil to America below market price because they care that the average American is struggling with high gas prices. Newsflash shills, oil companies could give two shits about you, your family, or your financial troubles. Their loyalty is to their bottom line and their shareholders. If they're permitted to drill on more U.S. territories they're going to take that oil, sell it overseas, celebrate those profits while at Joe Bob and the rest of his clan who actually thought would actually make a difference when it comes to the price of gas. Like that stupid article said...that's the free market. Let it work

Who are you talking about? You created some artificial person and then started putting them down for not being as intelligent of you. good burn on who ever that was meant for. But this is your jerry springer huh so good soap box stance. Now get to work so my friends can get food to have a bar-b-q today (food stamps)

This shit has been done to death, so I am going to go off my memory as much as possible.

Datapoints and given important principles, numbered for quick reference.:
1)Oil is fungible, and a global market. All inputs get dumped into the same tub, and taken out by buyers, who don't care where it comes from. PRICES ARE GLOBAL.
2) US produces 10% of global supply
3) US consumes 25% of global supply
4) In 1993, China was an exporter of oil. In 2009, it passed Japan as the #2 importer. It is projected to surpass the US within 10 years if current trends continue. Combine these two datapoints, and 100% of Chinese imports represent completely new demand that was not there 20 years ago.

Half-truth #2: Increasing oil production takes too long and would not impact the market for at least a decade.
This has been the mantra of the anti-drilling crowd for years, and the longer politicians listen to the message, the longer the nation’s oil resources will remain undeveloped. If access to areas that are currently off limits is increased, it will take time to explore and extract that oil. But that does not change the fact that the nation needs it today and also in the future. Furthermore, some of this oil can reach the market in much less than a decade if the permitting process is streamlined and the Keystone XL pipeline—which could bring up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada to the Gulf Coast refineries—is built.

This is a lie because it omits the small detail that this oil will get to market somewhere, somehow. Keystone or not. THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE WILL HAVE NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER ON THE GLOBAL PRICE OF OIL.

Added to this is that the oil that is "off limits", usually a code word for offshore, require billion-dollar ships and platforms to get to. There is a huge backlog in building the ships. The bottleneck is not having enough area to drill in, it is getting the ships online. Oil companies are hesitant to spend too much on these things, because they got burned in the 1990's by low oil prices and are leery of large capital expenditures.

"off limits" also generally refers to ANWAR, another tried and true vacuous talking point. ANWAR, if extracted would supply the US with less than four months supply of oil. Then it would be gone. It is simply not large enough to make a difference in the long run.

It mixes in some truth, but omits some key points. Either the author doesn't know how the market works, or is leaving it out.

Last edited by RandomGuy; 03-19-2012 at 08:22 AM.
Reason: Civility. I have to learn to stop posting while cranky and tired.

Half-truth #3: Oil is not enough. America has only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves.
President Obama frequently uses this number to push federal investments in alternative sources of energy that cannot stand the test of the market. The reality is that he uses this number deceptively. According to the Institute for Energy Research:
[A]lthough the U.S. is said to have only 20 billion barrels of oil in reserves, the amount of oil that is technically recoverable in the U.S. is more than 1.4 trillion barrels, with the largest deposits located offshore, in portions of Alaska, and in shale in the Rocky Mountain West. When combined with resources from Canada and Mexico, total recoverable oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels, or more than the world has used since the first oil well was drilled over 150 years ago in Titusville, Pennsylvania. To put this in context, Saudi Arabia has about 260 billion barrels of oil in proved reserves.
One reason to view “reserves” estimates with caution is the fact that they are constantly in flux. In 1980, the U.S. had oil reserves of roughly 30 billion barrels. Yet from 1980 through 2010, it produced over 77 billion barrels of oil. In other words, over the last 30 years, the U.S. produced over 150 percent of the proved reserves that it had in 1980. If the massive quantities of U.S. oil are made available to explore and produce, the current estimated reserves of 20 billion barrels would certainly increase, providing much more production over decades to come. In other words, reserves are not a stagnant number.[4]

You can get all the oil you want to get at $1000 bbl, but no one will buy it.

If the massive quantities of U.S. oil are made available to explore and produce, the current estimated reserves of 20 billion barrels would certainly increase,

Yes it would. The big question is whether those reserves will increase faster than they are drilled out of the ground. Globally, we have pumped oil out of the ground faster than we have discovered it since 1984.

The really big, easy to drill formations were sucked dry of oil a long time ago. What is left requires more effort, more drills and more money to get at, even with all the fracking you want. As the size of the deposits goes down, you have to find more and more at faster rates to maintain production rates.

In 1980, the U.S. had oil reserves of roughly 30 billion barrels. Yet from 1980 through 2010, it produced over 77 billion barrels of oil.

Again, leaving out a few things. Sonic imaging vastly improved in the time, as has drilling technology. We have reached the diminishing returns portion of the production curve. Sorry. There will be no magic to save oil production going forward.

The other portion left out is that the reserves they are pumping up and cherry-picking data to make their case with tend to be locked up on oil sands. Oil sands have gotten a lot more economical because of gas prices (the oil must be heated by burning natgas), but getting that full "technically recoverable" figure means strip mining HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES. Possible yes, but at a huge cost, even if one incorrectly ignores the environmental costs.